Share this story

Officials from the Department of Justice will reportedly be meeting this week with representatives of a 50-state coalition of state attorneys general to discuss tag-teaming their efforts to determine if Google's parent company, Alphabet, is in violation of antitrust laws.

At least seven of the state attorneys general, including Texas AG Ken Paxton, who is spearheading the state effort, are expected to attend. The Wall Street Journal, citing the ever-popular "people familiar with the matter," was the first to report on the meeting.

Further Reading

The Department of Justice confirmed in July that it was launching an antitrust probe into "market-leading online platforms." Google confirmed in September that it is indeed among those platforms being investigated.

The attorneys general, meanwhile, launched their probe in September. That group includes the attorneys general from 48 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. (Alabama and California are the two states not participating.)

The meeting between the feds and the states isn't quite a full agreement but rather "the start of a periodic dialogue that could expand into more formal cooperation as the probes continue," the WSJ reports.

The state and federal probes of Google are part of a massive cluster of investigations into the ways "big tech" firms, including Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and Google, use and potentially abuse their outsized market power. In addition to the coalition of states attorneys general and the Justice Department, Google is under investigation by the House Antitrust Subcommittee.

The House, as part of its probe, issued an absolutely massive request for documentation to all four companies in late September. Those responses have been coming in to the committee in chunks while the general investigation continues. Most recently, the Antitrust subcommittee held a field hearing in Colorado at which executives from several companies spoke about the market pressures they feel from the largest competitors.

Among those witnesses was Sonos CEO Patrick Spence, whose company filed suit against Google earlier this month for patent infringement. "Google has been blatantly and knowingly copying our patented technology," Spence said at the time. "Despite our repeated and extensive efforts over the last few years, Google has not shown any willingness to work with us on a mutually beneficial solution. We're left with no choice but to litigate."

59 Reader Comments

I'm sure that the federal investigation, run by AG Bill Barr, will be totally good-faith and above board, and definitely not a "the internet is mean to 'conservatives' so we need to punish them' exercise.

From Article: "The state and federal probes of Google are part of a massive cluster of investigations into the ways "big tech" firms, including Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and Google, use and potentially abuse their outsized market power."

I'm sure that the federal investigation, run by AG Bill Barr, will be totally good-faith and above board, and definitely not a "the internet is mean to 'conservatives' so we need to punish them' exercise.

It’s a bipartisan issue.

Regardless of which side of the aisle they lean to today... it could shift the other way in the future.

You are either willfully ignorant or blind if you don’t see the danger in a single/handful of companies controlling the flow of information. It is why antitrust laws exist.

Yes, please, waste as much of our tax dollars as you possibly can... that'll help everyone. Not saying there aren't problems with Google, but having corrupt politicians and regulators going about mishandling everything they touch does not give me confidence.

I'm sure that the federal investigation, run by AG Bill Barr, will be totally good-faith and above board, and definitely not a "the internet is mean to 'conservatives' so we need to punish them' exercise.

It’s a bipartisan issue.

Regardless of which side of the aisle they lean to today... it could shift the other way in the future.

You are either willfully ignorant or blind if you don’t see the danger in a single/handful of companies controlling the flow of information. It is why antitrust laws exist.

I agree that it's a bipartisan issue, and I am fully supportive of the antitrust investigations into large tech firms. However, I don't believe that AG Barr, who has done nothing but carry the most partisan water for the president's worst impulses (not to mention, participating in active coverups of the administration's treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors), will treat it as such. I'd hope to be proven wrong, but I expect that the federal effort will be partisan garbage focused on 'owning the libs.'

I'm sure that the federal investigation, run by AG Bill Barr, will be totally good-faith and above board, and definitely not a "the internet is mean to 'conservatives' so we need to punish them' exercise.

It’s a bipartisan issue.

Regardless of which side of the aisle they lean to today... it could shift the other way in the future.

You are either willfully ignorant or blind if you don’t see the danger in a single/handful of companies controlling the flow of information. It is why antitrust laws exist.

I agree with the sentiment, but American antitrust law and jurisprudence mostly exist to curb perceived material consumer abuse.

How about a seriously in depth audit of hundreds of billions of dollars these companies claim to have on their balance sheets? Does anyone really think it's reasonable for a company to have $200,000,000,000 in cash, after all their operating costs, by selling internet ads over the last 10 to 15 years?

How about a seriously in depth audit of hundreds of billions of dollars these companies claim to have on their balance sheets? Does anyone really think it's reasonable for a company to have $200,000,000,000 in cash, after all their operating costs, by selling internet ads over the last 10 to 15 years?

How about a seriously in depth audit of hundreds of billions of dollars these companies claim to have on their balance sheets? Does anyone really think it's reasonable for a company to have $200,000,000,000 in cash, after all their operating costs, by selling internet ads over the last 10 to 15 years?

You might want to consider a deep dive into all the ways Google makes all that cashola.

How about a seriously in depth audit of hundreds of billions of dollars these companies claim to have on their balance sheets? Does anyone really think it's reasonable for a company to have $200,000,000,000 in cash, after all their operating costs, by selling internet ads over the last 10 to 15 years?

It is reasonable when you consider the sales model is an auction. Delivering the ads is a known expense, but the income is whatever the market players will pay up as they compete to out-rank and out-display each other.

I'm sure that the federal investigation, run by AG Bill Barr, will be totally good-faith and above board, and definitely not a "the internet is mean to 'conservatives' so we need to punish them' exercise.

It’s a bipartisan issue.

Regardless of which side of the aisle they lean to today... it could shift the other way in the future.

You are either willfully ignorant or blind if you don’t see the danger in a single/handful of companies controlling the flow of information. It is why antitrust laws exist.

I agree with the sentiment, but American antitrust law and jurisprudence mostly exist to curb perceived material consumer abuse.

Still... it kind of fits though. They are just trying to sell you on the politician they bought and paid for as opposed to their rival they didn’t support. So in a way, it is kind of consumer abuse...

Personally, I think Congress should be required to wear patches from their corporate sponsors like they do in NASCAR...

I'm sure that the federal investigation, run by AG Bill Barr, will be totally good-faith and above board, and definitely not a "the internet is mean to 'conservatives' so we need to punish them' exercise.

It’s a bipartisan issue.

Regardless of which side of the aisle they lean to today... it could shift the other way in the future.

You are either willfully ignorant or blind if you don’t see the danger in a single/handful of companies controlling the flow of information. It is why antitrust laws exist.

I agree with the sentiment, but American antitrust law and jurisprudence mostly exist to curb perceived material consumer abuse.

Still... it kind of fits though. They are just trying to sell you on the politician they bought and paid for as opposed to their rival they didn’t support. So in a way, it is kind of consumer abuse...

Personally, I think Congress should be required to wear patches from their corporate sponsors like they do in NASCAR...

Be prepared for the end of the skinny politician. Assuming, of course, failure to appropriately display sponsors would result in termination of their term. They just don't have enough surface area.

They will swing a few hundred million at the Republican's in this next election and make it disappear.

They will throw money at both parties and make it disappear, which is exactly what happened the last time the career antitrust officials at the Federal Trade Comission recommended antitrust action against Google.

The political appointees, both Democratic and Republican, in the US shut that antitrust action down.

The EU continued their antitrust investigation of the same issues and found Google guilty.

I'm sure that the federal investigation, run by AG Bill Barr, will be totally good-faith and above board, and definitely not a "the internet is mean to 'conservatives' so we need to punish them' exercise.

It’s a bipartisan issue.

Regardless of which side of the aisle they lean to today... it could shift the other way in the future.

You are either willfully ignorant or blind if you don’t see the danger in a single/handful of companies controlling the flow of information. It is why antitrust laws exist.

I agree that it's a bipartisan issue, and I am fully supportive of the antitrust investigations into large tech firms. However, I don't believe that AG Barr, who has done nothing but carry the most partisan water for the president's worst impulses (not to mention, participating in active coverups of the administration's treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors), will treat it as such. I'd hope to be proven wrong, but I expect that the federal effort will be partisan garbage focused on 'owning the libs.'

From a cynical point of view Barr is smart enough to know when an issue has broad bipartisan support like this it's better to not interject partisanship as that runs the risk of breaking down the cooperation and backfiring.

From a less cynical view the depart of justice does not begin and end with the attorney general. A lot of dedicated civil servants with long careers would be working on a job of this scale and impact, and they aren't likely to be too swayed by political grandstanding one way or another

How about a seriously in depth audit of hundreds of billions of dollars these companies claim to have on their balance sheets? Does anyone really think it's reasonable for a company to have $200,000,000,000 in cash, after all their operating costs, by selling internet ads over the last 10 to 15 years?

You might want to consider a deep dive into all the ways Google makes all that cashola.

Figure an average ad is just a 10th of a cent, then we're talking 2T ads. That is a lot, but it is spread out across like a billion people (whether using Google to search or on a site that uses AdSense), so probably about 2000 ads per person. That isn't per day, that is over 10-15 years, so like 150-200 per year.

That would be gross, lets say the ads are 25% profit, so 600-800 ads per year per person. That is only 2-3 per day which feels low (and we've ignored that Google also makes money other ways).

How about a seriously in depth audit of hundreds of billions of dollars these companies claim to have on their balance sheets? Does anyone really think it's reasonable for a company to have $200,000,000,000 in cash, after all their operating costs, by selling internet ads over the last 10 to 15 years?

You might want to consider a deep dive into all the ways Google makes all that cashola.

Figure an average ad is just a 10th of a cent, then we're talking 2T ads. That is a lot, but it is spread out across like a billion people (whether using Google to search or on a site that uses AdSense), so probably about 2000 ads per person. That isn't per day, that is over 10-15 years, so like 150-200 per year.

That would be gross, lets say the ads are 25% profit, so 600-800 ads per year per person. That is only 2-3 per day which feels low (and we've ignored that Google also makes money other ways).

Why on earth would you assume ads have only a 25% profit margin? Google owns it's own fiber.

They don't get a monthly bandwidth bill from their ISP.

Also

>The average cost per click in Google Ads is between $1 and $2 on the search network. The average CPC on the Display Network is under $1.

The most expensive keywords in Google Ads and Bing Ads cost $50 or more per click. These are generally highly competitive keywords in industries that have high customer lifetime values, like law and insurance.

How about a seriously in depth audit of hundreds of billions of dollars these companies claim to have on their balance sheets? Does anyone really think it's reasonable for a company to have $200,000,000,000 in cash, after all their operating costs, by selling internet ads over the last 10 to 15 years?

Give up your info in exchange for free internet services? Fine, as long as it is VERY clear that's the transaction the user has entered. They can't just bury it in an SLA.

But these companies track everyone even those that do not use their 'free' services. We get nothing and they monetize our data. That's THEFT. And it should be looked at as such.

Agreed; and this is at the heart of why such antitrust investigations are no more than half measures.

Antitrust remedies may have positive impacts across the competitive business landscape, but this simply ignores the fact that all such businesses share the same predatory attitude to the general population. A good place to start any efforts to *Level The Playing Field* would be to ensure personal data privacy protections, such as those offered through the GDPR. The general public is certainly playing on the same field as the service providers, albeit in a different role and capacity.

Well, considering GOP Senators are going to give Trump a pass on election interference and shaking down Ukraine, now they can start to shake down Silicon Valley for "donations" lest there be "investigations".

How about a seriously in depth audit of hundreds of billions of dollars these companies claim to have on their balance sheets? Does anyone really think it's reasonable for a company to have $200,000,000,000 in cash, after all their operating costs, by selling internet ads over the last 10 to 15 years?

How about a seriously in depth audit of hundreds of billions of dollars these companies claim to have on their balance sheets? Does anyone really think it's reasonable for a company to have $200,000,000,000 in cash, after all their operating costs, by selling internet ads over the last 10 to 15 years?

You might want to consider a deep dive into all the ways Google makes all that cashola.

Figure an average ad is just a 10th of a cent, then we're talking 2T ads. That is a lot, but it is spread out across like a billion people (whether using Google to search or on a site that uses AdSense), so probably about 2000 ads per person. That isn't per day, that is over 10-15 years, so like 150-200 per year.

That would be gross, lets say the ads are 25% profit, so 600-800 ads per year per person. That is only 2-3 per day which feels low (and we've ignored that Google also makes money other ways).

Why on earth would you assume ads have only a 25% profit margin? Google owns it's own fiber.

They don't get a monthly bandwidth bill from their ISP.

Also

>The average cost per click in Google Ads is between $1 and $2 on the search network. The average CPC on the Display Network is under $1.

The most expensive keywords in Google Ads and Bing Ads cost $50 or more per click. These are generally highly competitive keywords in industries that have high customer lifetime values, like law and insurance.

I can remember seeing that the law firms handling lawsuits over mesothelioma were paying a thousand bucks a click over an ad whose marginal cost to display for Google had to be less than a cent.

Well, first, cost per click is very different than cost to get an ad displayed. A fair point that different advertisers choose different paths in this regard. And second, I was trying to be conservative.

Lets ignore the per view ads entirely and figure a net profit of $0.90-1.80 for every click. To get to $15-20B per year (ie assume that all of that $200B in 10-15 years came from that alone), you need 23-61M "clicks" per day.

To be conservative, lets ignore 2nd/3rd world populations (down to ~1B) and generously half that to exclude kids and people without regular access to digital devices. Those 500M remaining people, need a click-though once every ~2.5 weeks on average to get to the target clicks.

So, even if Google made no money from anything else, it is the like 20 ads per year the average person clicks on generating those large amounts of cash.

I'm sure that the federal investigation, run by AG Bill Barr, will be totally good-faith and above board, and definitely not a "the internet is mean to 'conservatives' so we need to punish them' exercise.

It's almost as if systematic degradation of trust in government regulatory agencies is on purpose...

I wonder if there won't be some kind of line drawn on corporate acquisitions after this (assuming this investigation goes anywhere). There's a good argument to be made that companies like Facebook buying out any real competitor using their outsized resources (vs. the smaller firms they're buying) is anti-competitive.